Current CSU Salaries

The current salaries of CSU faculty have been determined by the California Post-Secondary Education Commission, a state body charged with providing the legislative and executive bodies of the state of California with advice and information about post-secondary issues. In their 2006 report on faculty salaries (found here http://www.cpec.ca.gov/completereports/2006reports/06-01.pdf, the Commission establishes the salary “lag” (the amount necessary to attain parity with a comparable group of institutions) at 18%. Note, in particular, that the lag for full professors is projected at 26.7% for 2006-2007.

T Nelson, Professor at CSU, San Bernardino, at 10:16 am EST on February 27, 2007

Kings & their clothes

If the salaries and working conditions are so bad — why don’t they leave?

Are they being held hostage? Should the U.S. Marines be sent in, on rescue missions?

With millions of unemployed and underemployed PhDs and MA grads — these people can’t be replaced?

Leonard Washington, at 11:45 am EST on February 27, 2007

CPEC, Step Increases, & Hostages

Just a few points on this from a nameless CSU assistant professor:

1. The CPEC comparison is probably the fairest, since it *is* the one performed by the State. Why would the CSU dispute its findings? Hmmm...

2. Step increases are, in theory, available to faculty at all ranks, not just to us assistant professors. There are salary step tables for the various ranks, although you have to find them on your own, and they do not include the 3.5% general salary increase from nearly two years ago. The tricky part is that those tables refer to something called “SSI MAX” without explaining it. For assistant professors, the SSI MAX is Step 11 (out of 28). Nobody in my entire college has been hired below that level since 2002 or 2003, and in fact, the step at which people are hired goes up every year to keep up with the market. What most of us do not learn until the end of our second year, when we expect our first step increase, is that SSI MAX means you make too much money for a step increase. And of course, the same thing is true for the other ranks as well, except that they have fewer steps. Your only hope in this situation, aside from across-the-board raises (GSIs), is to (1) get an offer from another university and ask your current school to match it, or (2) apply for an “equity increase” by pointing out that somebody has gotten hired just out of grad school for more than you, so could you please get what they’re getting.

3. So why are we staying, if we aren’t being held hostage? If you are looking for a tenure-track position, the hiring is done during 3-6 months each year, and an application package is a substantial undertaking that requires letters of recommendation, which in turn probably tips off the Powers that Be that you are looking. If you are untenured, that could be unwise. If you are tenured, your friends and co-workers know you want to leave them. Keep in mind also that if you are not tenured yet, and you go to a new institution, you will have to start the 6-year tenure clock from 0, or maybe you will get 1-2 years of “service credit.” For example, you would normally be told during Year 6 whether you will receive tenure. If you looked for and got a new job during Year 5, however, and began the new position in Aug/Sept. of what would have been Year 6, you are suddenly 5-6 years from being an associate professor, rather than just 1. This is a powerful incentive for assistant professors—the faculty with the fewest ties to the community and campus, typically—to stay where we are, unless something really good comes up in the first year or two. And during the first year or two, assistant professors are typically far too busy to be looking. Once you are tenured, if a university has a position open in your discipline, you are at a disadvantage if it is an “open-rank” hire because it would be much cheaper for them to hire an assistant professor. There’s more to it than that, but I’m trying to keep this under 550 words.

Dr. N, CSU Somewhere, at 5:51 pm EST on February 27, 2007

Crisis here

I’m constantly shocked at the hostile responses to stories like this — even in “Inside Higher Ed", which, one assumes, is mostly read by people in higher ed. The hostiles seems to see us as lazy, greedy, and undeserving.

In many fields, a Ph.D. takes 7+ years (after undergrad) these days and in other fields, a post-doc is needed before teaching. We are talking about a total of 11 or more years of education and training BEFORE WE GET OUR FIRST JOB. Our friends from college are in the workforce earning money for 6,7,8,9 years during which we are incurring debt. The only other career path that demands that much time and sacrifice is medical school — and they start at 2-3 times the pay or more. Nobody argues that medical doctors should not complain if they are paid $50K a year —- certainly not their own patients! But professors are attacked by the very people who need them and ought to appreciate them — the citizens, students, and parents.

Bottom line: The CSU is losing talented young faculty because of enormous pay gaps, the highest teaching load and lowest research support combination of any type of instition, and the growing sense of a hostile work environment. Senior faculty are retiring. Nobody full-time is being hired to fill the gap. The CSU is a sinking ship. The public seems not to notice or care.

It is ultimately California that will suffer.

Dr. L, CSU, at 7:56 pm EST on February 27, 2007

Ever hear of economics?

” .. But professors are attacked by the very people who need them and ought to appreciate them ..”

Economics: how to deal with unlimited wants with limited resources; supply and demand.

Millions of decent, hard-working people (at least one-third with college degrees) have had to change careers due to the rise of the Asian and European economies.

Yet — there are some who think themselves above such changes and entitled to “more, more, more.”

Well — those folks are free to go on strike.

And, as federal law states, management is free to replace strikers.

Strike, and permanent loss of job may result. That is a fact, it is reality, deal with it.

Leonard Washington, at 6:25 am EST on February 28, 2007

Faculty Farm Workers

L. Washington makes some valid points, which we should all consider. The CSU Board is trying to run the system as a business. They recognize that short of eliminating the campuses all together and selling diplomas on the street, anything they do to cut cost will not reduce enrollment so long as the tuition is among the lowest in the nation.

I am a 50 year old tenured Associate Professor at a CSU. I could make double my current salary in the outside world if I could get hired at 50 when I have had limited research output due in part to the quite limited resources at the CSU. The CSU takes advantage of tenured faulty like me, because we can’t leave. If some want to eliminate tenure I will be happy to accept a 100% pay raise, which is the value placed on tenure by the CSU. The value placed on tenure is why the salary gap for Associate and Full Professors is so large and why new untenured faculty must be hired at pay above existing faculty. I must accept this unhappily.

I have chaired two search committees in the last two years. In the last, 2/3 of the applicants were non-US nationals many of whom have never lived in the US. These folks are honest about coming to a CSU as a way to get into the country. US nationals drop out or do not apply based on the limited resources for research and the low pay in a place where the median home price is about 10 times the annual salary of an Assistant Professor. The few US nationals that stay in the pool have some strong connection to the area, usually family.

As I see it, the arguments are the same as with farm workers. If the pay and working conditions are poor enough the young and capable faculty will leave. The CSU faculty will consist of those trapped by their age and those who will do anything to live here and then move somewhere else for higher pay. This keeps costs down.

This business analysis does not directly consider the value of the degree sold by CSU Inc. Ultimately if the education has the same value at lower cost the Board has done its job. If as many of the faculty believe this plan will hurt the value of the degree and the economic competitiveness of the California we will have proof too late to save the system.

B, at 11:20 am EST on February 28, 2007

Salary problems for faculty, especially junior faculty at the CSU are a serious matter that needs to be fixed very soon. These are the facts, as I see them:

1) Community college faculty earn, on average, more than CSU faculty. This is essentially a Ph.D. penalty, considering that the credentials needed to teach community college require a Master’s degree.

2) My annual income can be increased by about $15,000 teaching science or calculus at a high school in a wealthy district. The pay scales of most K-12 districts reward continuing education.

3) My department is planning to hire a new assistant professor this semester and the salary range for this position is higher than my current earnings as an association professor. Nothing is being done to alleviate this salary inversion.

4) The teaching load at the CSU is much higher than that of comparable universities in other states, but the research expectations are also comparable. Faculty are evaluated on the basis of 40% teaching, 40% research, and 20% service to the university, college, and department. Work assignments are given on the basis of 80% teaching (12 of 15 WTUs) and 20% service (3 of 15WTUs). This is a sound demonstration of the paucity of support by the CSU administration for research.

5) It is necessary for junior faculty to take on additional teaching duties during the summer and winter breaks in order to remain financially solvent in expensive California. This cuts into the time most faculty use to conduct their research.

6) Support for research laboratories from the administration is almost nonexistent. There are numerous examples of scientists purchasing sophisticated instrumentation that require technical support and the CSU is not able to provide funds to pay for it. This commonly results in instruments that cost the university hundreds of thousands of dollars sitting around and collecting dust most of the time.

7) Support for graduate studies is lacking. Faculty do not get workload credit for supervising graduate students. Graduate students are not valued in that stipends do not even come close to providing even the most basic needs for survival, making outside employment necessary for graduate students.

8) The library at my CSU has recently blocked off most of the collections due to construction. What is the purpose of having a university without the contents of the library being accessable to the university community?

gh, at 2:06 pm EST on February 28, 2007

Leonard’s Folly

I’ve been reading this with interest (from outside the CSU system). Leonard is right to suggest that a university system can be done on the cheap — and the CSU system is evidence of that. His economics argument is basically sound — there are probably sufficient warm bodies, especially from abroad, who will take a low salaried job rather than face unemployment. The question is whether it is in the best interests of the State of California. The same market forces Leonard describes also lead to a low quality result for California over time. The faculty with the most mobility are the most qualified — so the best faculty will leave (or some will stay because of family ties and just be resentful) and it will become increasingly difficult to attract good faculty to the system. That’s the market too. So, Leonard is right that it can be done cheaply and we can undervalue (by comparison) the employees in California. The schools will continue to operate. But the best faculty and eventually the best (smartest) students will look elsewhere and California will lose out. Leonard’s recipe is for mediocrity. It’s certainly a choice, but let’s be clear what we’re getting when so choose.

Dr. S, at 11:45 am EST on March 1, 2007

Surprised At Hostility Towards Faculty

The hostility and tone of some of these comments surprises me. Would these individuals make the same “go with the market” claims about the hiring of teachers for the lowest dollars at their children’s elementary schools? Probably not!

Some key points: On the tenure system. Tenure systems are a public universities best defense against political legislative cuts that could decimate faculty levels, and destroy course schedules. The hiring of faculty takes a year. In industry companies can fire quickly and hire quickly. In the CSU system and others it would take a year to re-hire faculty..that is if you could get applicants to take the positions, which at this time they do not.

One final point to stand up for students. Yes in CA there is UC system. But hundreds of thousands cannot get into it or afford it. The CSU provides a high quality education (focuses on teaching not on research) especially in many pre-professional areas. These students many from middle to lower income families would not have access to a high quality education and a chance to advance in life without the system, which needs high quality faculty.

The system requires faculty to have degrees which require 7-10 years of college, complete a 6 year probationary period which includes publishing and teaching more courses per term than most other public schools. They do this, but then don’t deliver the pay increases they promise, and expect us to live in southern CA with no hope of ever owning a home, or being able to be financially secure.

Standing Up For Students, Professor at CSUF, at 1:50 pm EST on March 2, 2007

hee hee hee

you have to admit its funny to hear Leonard Washington rant and rave and hate and then ask others to ’show character’....

Why is a strike not part of the free market system? If the administration and the state think they can do better than paying professors 73% of what professors at comparable institutions get, they have the option of bringing in scabs and starting fresh.

And, regarding those noble administrators that Lennie says can be fired in a second....those poor souls would then have to exercise their retreat rights and become faculty...can you imagine the indignity of that?

in response, at 12:35 pm EST on March 5, 2007

some clarifications

In the event that L. Washington’s viewpoint is shared by others, it seems worthwhile to clarify some points.

1. He has reiterated that his is a recipe for mediocrity; the CSU faculty are striving towards a higher goal than this. Herein lies much of the dispute.

2. His position is that the basis of the problem is faculty greed, not faculty concern for the CSU. Among the economic fallacies here are that economic rationality is always inconsistent with altruistic intents, and that self-interest means selfishness. A better CSU is better for the students, the companies that hire the graduates, Californians whose fellow citizens are engaged and educated, AND the faculty.

3. Some of his statements indicate a misguided blanket anti-tax bias, for example his statement that ‘California has lost 5% of its population due to high costs’. First, the statement is just plain wrong — according to the U.S. Census Bureau, California’s population increased by 6.7% from 2000 to 2005, while the U.S. population experienced only 5.3% growth. More importantly, though, educational expenditures are an investment in the future, not money down the drain. California’s knowledge-based economy requires an educated workforce (10% of whom are CSU alumni). Because the CSU serves primarily lower income students, this investment is necessary if California is going to benefit from an educated citizenry.

Mark Wilson, Humboldt State University, at 10:10 pm EST on March 6, 2007